[gnso-vi-feb10] A few comments on the proposals before us.

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

I just wanted to make some brief comments on some of the proposals we've seen. 
Apologies in advance if some of these points have already been made, but 
considering the wealth (I was going to say "deluge") of discussion these have 
generated in the last few days, it's easy to miss things.

Coincidently, I worry that some people are actually being excluded. I realize 
it's always an effort to try and make a point succinctly (I can never do it), 
but considering the verbose nature of some of the recent emails sent, I don't 
think we should be surprised that in a WG of more than 50 people, only about 10 
seem to be contributing with any regularity.

Onto the proposals. I find it very hard to accept what is stated as the 
fundamental philosophy of the PIR proposal that no change is better than 
risking change. If that's the case, then the safest bet is not to launch new 
gTLDs at all. I also find the Demand Media proposal a little extreme, but in 
the other direction, although I am heartened to see it include SO TLDs, which 
the PIR proposal doesn't clearly seem to do.

So the proposal I am most comfortable with as a base line at this stage is the 
MMA proposal, because it allows CO, but with certain safeguards - because it 
considers that SO and SR TLDs can exist, and tries to cater for them, and 
because it still maintains a distinction between registries and registrars.

If the other proposals' strong points can be incorporated in the MMA one, I 
think we would have a good solution.

Just my 5 cents...

Stéphane